GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

68,140/- by adding commission payment of ₹.2,73,69,761/- from the above mentioned three entities and also by disallowing the expenditure of 6 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 ₹.49,34,520/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act was also initiated in the assessment completed on 30.12.2008. The order was appealed before

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

68,140/- by adding commission payment of ₹.2,73,69,761/- from the above mentioned three entities and also by disallowing the expenditure of 6 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 ₹.49,34,520/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act was also initiated in the assessment completed on 30.12.2008. The order was appealed before

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

68,140/- by adding commission payment of ₹.2,73,69,761/- from the above mentioned three entities and also by disallowing the expenditure of 6 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 ₹.49,34,520/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act was also initiated in the assessment completed on 30.12.2008. The order was appealed before

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

68,140/- by adding commission payment of ₹.2,73,69,761/- from the above mentioned three entities and also by disallowing the expenditure of 6 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 ₹.49,34,520/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act was also initiated in the assessment completed on 30.12.2008. The order was appealed before

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

68,140/- by adding commission payment of ₹.2,73,69,761/- from the above mentioned three entities and also by disallowing the expenditure of 6 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 ₹.49,34,520/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act was also initiated in the assessment completed on 30.12.2008. The order was appealed before

D.SRINIVAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

68,140/- by adding commission payment of ₹.2,73,69,761/- from the above mentioned three entities and also by disallowing the expenditure of 6 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 ₹.49,34,520/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act was also initiated in the assessment completed on 30.12.2008. The order was appealed before

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

68,140/- by adding commission payment of ₹.2,73,69,761/- from the above mentioned three entities and also by disallowing the expenditure of 6 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 ₹.49,34,520/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act was also initiated in the assessment completed on 30.12.2008. The order was appealed before

DK 140 UTHANGARAI PUESHES TEACHERS & EMP. CO-OP THRIFT & CREDIT SCOIETY LTD.,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KRISHNAGIRI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1227/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dk140 Uthangarai Pueshes Teachers Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Emp. Co-Op. Thrift & Credit Ward 1, Society Limited, 140, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri. Krishnagiri-635 001. [Pan:Aagad3195A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

253(6) of the Act. In our opinion, there is not much difference between an order of CIT(Appeals) which is not on merits, but dismissing an appeal whether on account of limitation or on account of non-appearance of the parties. In this view of the matter, we admit the appeal of the assessee’’. 4. Respectfully following

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was not routed through the profit and loss account. The reopening at this stage

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was not routed through the profit and loss account. The reopening at this stage

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was not routed through the profit and loss account. The reopening at this stage

THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

253) held that purpose or object of subsidy was\nrelevant to decide the character of the incentive not the mechanism of\npayment and observed that, “If the object of the subsidy scheme was to\nITA No.2174/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)\nM/s. The India Cements Ltd.\n:: 15 ::\nenable the assessee to run the business more profitably then the receipt

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

253(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned TPO has erred in not providing any basis for arriving at 3.5 percentage as arm’s length price commission for issuing corporate guarantee for the subject AY 2009-10. 3. The learned TPO erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned TPO himself applied the rate

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

253(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned TPO has erred in not providing any basis for arriving at 3.5 percentage as arm’s length price commission for issuing corporate guarantee for the subject AY 2009-10. 3. The learned TPO erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned TPO himself applied the rate

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

253(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned TPO has erred in not providing any basis for arriving at 3.5 percentage as arm’s length price commission for issuing corporate guarantee for the subject AY 2009-10. 3. The learned TPO erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned TPO himself applied the rate

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

253(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned TPO has erred in not providing any basis for arriving at 3.5 percentage as arm’s length price commission for issuing corporate guarantee for the subject AY 2009-10. 3. The learned TPO erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned TPO himself applied the rate

VARAM CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI HON'BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. During appellate proceedings, the assessee has remained non-responsive despite multiple opportunities Varam Capital Pvt. Ltd. :- 4 -: provided u/s 250 of the Act as mentioned in the previous paragraphs. In the light of the fact that the nature and source of cash deposits have not been explained with documentary evidences, the addition made u/s.68

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

253,44,00,000, for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively, must, therefore, stand deleted. We hold so. Grievance of the assessee, with respect to ALP adjustments on account of accretion in brand value of the AE due to its use by the assessee, is thus upheld. 45. So far as the assessment year

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

253,44,00,000, for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively, must, therefore, stand deleted. We hold so. Grievance of the assessee, with respect to ALP adjustments on account of accretion in brand value of the AE due to its use by the assessee, is thus upheld. 45. So far as the assessment year